On 10/02/2011 citationx wrote:>On 7/02/2011 nmonteith wrote:>>Isn't the Bible supposed to be the word of God? Surely he can get the>facts>>straight can't he?>>The problem with this (ignoring the non-existence of a god in the first)>is that the bible is a human's take on the what they think is the word>of God, probably made to suit them (and why not, they've made many billions>from it). And not only that, but the new testament was mostly written by>a bunch of guys a good couple of hundred years after "JC"s death. How's>that for accurate journalism, can you think of the feast the chockstoners>will have in 200 years time when people try and recount the legend of climbers>past incorrectly?>Yet here we are, two thousand years on, banging on about what a great>guy he was as the books prove and what wonderful miracles happened back>then and how people even older than him created plagues and floods and>turned one thing into the next. And in the book it was the work of God,>whereas now the massive flooding in north QLD isn't the work of god but>of the phenomenon of La Nina, which we can fairly accurately forecast using>the SOI, and the plague in Victoria isn't God either, it's the overly wet>conditions after a bunch of dry years. Bright stuff flying through the>sky? Asteroids, meteors, not signs from god at all anymore. Making the>sun disappear? Making it burn red? The earth is round, eclipses, astronomy?>And turning water into wine? Hell, we have a bunch of alchemists and psychos>these days that are apparently changing stuff all the time, that we pass>off as quaint quackery.>But no, the bible is true and we should live by it because even though>we can explain (and even predict) what's going to happen in this day and>age that seem exteremely similar to things that occured in JCs time, modern>sciences didn't apply back then, they were just miracles by some great>guy!>How delusional religious people are.

I strongly suggest you (and anyone else interested) read John Dicksons book "The Christ Files: How historians know what they know about Jesus".

Its a discussion of what mainstream historians think about the life of Jesus and the evidence they use to reach their conclusions.

The aim of Dicksons book is to demonstrate that is it a given in the academic world that Christianity is based on claims that can be examined historically:

Quoted from the introduction (page 3):>Professional historians,>regardless of their religious persuasion, treat the NewTestament>and its portrait of Christ far more seriously than the general>public realises. There are literally thousands of scholars around>the world who devote their time to analysing early Christianity.>Some of them hold chairs in the most prestigious universities in>the world. And they constantly publish their findings in the>more than 100 academic journals dedicated to this subject.

For example to dispute your claims citationx about inaccuracy and bias:
You'll find that the Gospels were actually written less than 100 years after his death, which by comparison to other religions and historical documents this was an extremely short period of time (consider also that very few people could read and write in ancient times, the primary source of information was via word of mouth).

Dickson also argues that in the examaniation of historial documents historians can account for biases that the writer may have had and take them into consideration when assessing the document for accuracy. Despite occational biases noted in subsequent translations, historians still accept these accounts are reliable and valid.

On 10/02/2011 wallwombat wrote:>I'd like to read an 11 page thread about a climbing related subject (besides>helmets or carrots vs rings). Can't see it happening.

Yeah like why the hell the only kangaroo kebabs you can buy are covered in plastic and have goo all over them. I'm serious. The price of roo is out of control. Why can't I go to the butcher and get a half or quarter of a roo, I can get a quarter or half hoggat but not a roo.

Roo is sold for pet food in russia, I'm sure they don't pay what I'm paying per kg and I'm pretty sure shooters don't line them up in there sights and go "that ones pet food, that ones for Dave".

@ Sabu & Pat
The bible is, little doubt about it, a great feat of literature. There's a lot going into it.
I guess there are three parts in the point of my discussion. The Bible, the New Testament (and JC) and Religion. and yes, of course i'm generalising about the bible in my @Pat post, I stopped reading deeply into the bible very early, mostly because I don't feel the need to have a God in my life to give me purpose, so the most early propaganda that gets taught from the bible was used.
The bible I imagine to be a great book of philosophical pieces from a shtload of people. Great work. It has a set of laws, it has talks about helping others, it has how one person smote another in the battle of the weiners. Great, it helped less fortunate people believe that their life isn't just going to be sht from go to woah, it forms the ethics and shape the morals of today's western society. Just like the Chinese had their gods and the incas, the aboriginal dreamtime and the ancient greeks with their philosophers. They're just different forms of bringing a purpose to life and a framework for society.
Now, as for JC, I have no doubt that there was a great guy back then doing stuff, with so much written about him, how could he not be (or perhaps not. the legend may have just grown from a local guy doing good stuff. Perhaps it managed to go, in a time without youtube, twitter or facebook, Viral through the ages). But Sabu talks about some book (that i'm not interested in reading) that shows what historians think of Jesus. What does this prove about his being the -literal- son of god as portrayed in the NT? Do they agree that his hand had a magic touch that healed a leper and blindness? Or that he waved his hands and literally turned five loaves and fish into a smorgasboard worthy of the all the Roman emperors through all of time? Does it show that he really did medically die for three days and then medically rise again? Metaphors, probably. Maybe they all just believe he was a pretty cool philanthropist of the time, giving more time to the guy on george street, with his black feet, alcohol breath and signs saying that he's homeless because he's in a massive legal battle with the big-O, than most. I have little doubt that there was a kind soul, always doign great and giving people a direction for living life, but a lot of what is said about JC relates to being the son of "God" and the saviour of all of us. This just doesn't cut the mustard. Why should I believe it any mroe than the incan gods or the muslim writings of the time? It's just one bunch of people's events about a great guy from their part of the world at that time. Read Chinese texts or listen to Aboriginal tales of the dreamtime, they'll each have their own version of the guy who is going to save them and created their world. Why believe them any more than the bible? Having seen so many different forms of saviours, it seems to me fairly clear that people just make their own up to suit themselves and some gain more traction than others (think of all the new age relgions and their saviours). In today's western society there are a bunch of great people doing a shitload for a lot of others that are almost godlike figure. They give tirelessly, they help whenever they can, they're powerful and rich and can direct funds and assistance to causes, if society ends today and the only writings life finds in 200 years is about bill gates, given his philanthropic giving, he'd be right up there as being a pretty powerful and kind god figure.
Now following into religion, as I said, why do I need to choose from one of a million different ones? Each one of them has their own good leader who did great things, their own son(s) of god and each gives a hope for those of us with little to look forward to in modern society and a set of rules to live by. Why should I give alms to the poor just because some bozo in a church tells me to any moreso than the guy i see on the street? I think that religion for the most part helped shape society's morals and ethics and that we don't really need it much anymore (there are many arguements against this one).
As Pat said, we each have our own opinions, but I'm finding nothing great about believing in any of the gods on offer. There's a certain amount of corruption of the message and morals going on in any of the religion fraternity around the world these days to question whether those that preach all believe in it anyway.

While Mormons believe in the Bible as the word of God, we believe it as far as it has been translated correctly. (article 8 here - http://www.mormon.org/articles-of-faith/). FYI the Articles of Faith were penned to give a concise overview of what Mormons believe.

As far as the Book of Mormon, we believe it is a separate volume of scripture confirming the teachings of Jesus. That's why it is called, 'Another Testament of Jesus Christ', not, 'The Book of Mormon, an addendum to the Bible confirming other things about Jesus.'

If anyone want to know more I know a couple of bike riding young people in white shirts and name tags... :)

Well the only good reason to do something is because it is true. Not because I convince you or I fail to convince you because I am stupid. It might just be possible that Jesus was who he said he was and did what was recorded.

Sabu's recommendation of the Dickinson book was to address your assertion that the Bible was written hundreds of year's after the events. Maybe it would be a good idea to find out if the events stack up historically. Seeing as you are clearly not a Christ follower, I'm sure that you would have less bias than me towards the historicity of the events.

The problem with an honest and critical enquiry is that it might lead to a need to change our worldview. Its a lot easier to create a straw figure and knock it down saying how can we know anything?

Christianity is based on historical events, therefore it is unique in that it lends itself to historical examination (unlike many other religions). The point I was making was that if you want challenge the historial authenticity of the Gospels as an account of Jesus then you will ultimately come to the same conclusion as many historians. From then it's up to you whether to believe the Gospels in saying he was the son of God.

On 10/02/2011 Sabu wrote:>As above and I'll add this:>>Christianity is based on historical events, therefore it is unique in>that it lends itself to historical examination (unlike many other religions).

Islam & Judiasm? Aren't they based on the same historical foundations of the Old Testament? Why are they wrong and you are right?

On 10/02/2011 Miguel75 wrote:>>If anyone want to know more I know a couple of bike riding young people>in white shirts and name tags... :)>
I once picked a pair of Mormons out from about a kilometre away. You might argue that was pretty easy as we were in southern Utah so you could probably point at any random person and there's a better than 50:50 chance that you'll be right. But this was some rundown remote place mainly inhabited by indigenous Americans and there were these two figures dressed in suits way ahead on the desolate street. I instinctively yelled : "Mormons", and they did turn out to a pair of young missionaries in their standard-issue outfits.
Also a few years ago I attended the wedding of some friends at an evangelical church. They went in for a lot of singing while waving their arms above their heads. But I noticed that as the singing went on the arms gradually drooped until they where mostly below shoulder height and I remarked to Meg : "Even born-agains get pumped".
Jesus probably lived.
There probably is no God, but it probably doesn't matter if you believe in one.
Enjoy your life - it's probably the only one you will get.

citationx the bible is not a great pice of literature. Blood and Guts in High School by Kathy Acker is a great piece of literature, Principles of Mathamatics by bertrand Russell is a great piece of literature, the bible is not. Greatness and popularity are exclusive

also who gives a shit if theres a god or not when kangaroo meet is expensive

On 10/02/2011 nmonteith wrote:>On 10/02/2011 Sabu wrote:>>As above and I'll add this:>>>>Christianity is based on historical events, therefore it is unique in>>that it lends itself to historical examination (unlike many other religions).>>Islam & Judiasm? Aren't they based on the same historical foundations>of the Old Testament? Why are they wrong and you are right?

I guess my sole frame of incas and the dreamtime missed my point i wanted to make about these. A lot of writings and scripts are about real people that were pretty cool The point of the bible is that it adds these mythical qualities to JC, healing lepers, curing blindness, multiplying fish. The existence of JC isn't at question, the fact he is the son of "God" (who/whatever that is) and worked "miracles" (comparable to "magic") is the point of contention with the NT. As for the OT, the amount of god-wrath and miracles that occured back then that is still believed and touted by christians as proof is more off the charts (parting the red sea?), even those that can be explained now that we have a better understanding of sciences (plagues, floods, hiding of the sun, bright stars in the sky at night - to quote the oft quoted ones ;-)) Think of all those people that don't believe Darwinism but really do believe that the world was created in 7 days a few million years ago. I had once argued with a friend that if these points were incorrect (again, you may be religious enough to deny that the universe is around 13billion years old, that it was the hand of god) then why should i believe any of the remaining points brought up in the bible? If Genesis is a work of fiction (and by modern science, it is) then who is not to say a lot of the other OT things aren't either? It just lowers the level of credibility of a lot of the OT as a true historical, word for word account.

As Neil pointed out, why indeed is one right over the other. As I said, so many people reckon their god is the right one that it is impossible to not believe that "god" is just a figment of people's imagination to give them cause and right to exist.

>I once picked a pair of Mormons out from about a kilometre away. You might>argue that was pretty easy as we were in southern Utah so you could probably>point at any random person and there's a better than 50:50 chance that>you'll be right.... ...I instinctively yelled : "Mormons", and they did turn out to a pair of >young missionaries in their standard-issue outfits.

I'll see the misso's on the street and give them a little curry before I let them know I'm a member.

In some little towns in Utah you'd be hard pressed to find a non Mormon though SLC has had such an influx of people, due to a relatively strong economy, the ratio of mormon, non-Mormon is about 60-30-10 (Non-Mormons, Mormons, random heathens)

On 10/02/2011 widewetandslippery wrote:>citationx the bible is not a great pice of literature. Blood and Guts in>High School by Kathy Acker is a great piece of literature, Principles of>Mathamatics by bertrand Russell is a great piece of literature, the bible>is not. Greatness and popularity are exclusive>>also who gives a shit if theres a god or not when kangaroo meet is expensive

Worth its own thread? This got me more riled up than the piss-drinking bollocks spewing out half the sanctimonious cakeholes in this thread.

@Citationx
Your 'why should I believe in this religion and not that religion' argument can be summed up like this:
There are thousands upon thousands of gods you, as a Christian, dont believe in.
I, as an atheist, dont believe in just one more.

Many Christians don't believe the world is 6000 years old. I don't. Again, modern science hasn't 'proved' Genesis a work of fiction. It has challenged quite a few simplistic Christian readings of the first 3 chapters. I don't believe that the Big Bang and a creator God are mutually exclusive. The first three chapters of genesis are structured to give meaning, not a scientific treatise. As I said before not all of the OT is a historical word for word account.

As I said above, the only reason to believe someone's claim that what they believe is right is because it is true. It is possible to know something truly and just because a whole lot of people believe a bunch of conflicting things, it doesn't mean that one group might be right.

However, sadly I have become the one thing on this forum that I didn't want to be - a God-botherer. So I'm making this my last post and leave the invitation open to any who would like to discuss Jesus and the Bible in private.

On 10/02/2011 Olbert wrote:>@Citationx>Your 'why should I believe in this religion and not that religion' argument>can be summed up like this:>There are thousands upon thousands of gods you, as a Christian, dont believe>in.>I, as an atheist, dont believe in just one more.>

To paraphrase Pat, yes Olbert, this is one, simplistic, way of looking at it. However I guess that your statement refers to the end result of my thinking, not the reason I came to that conclusion.
And www, I think that given its size, scope, and the stories that it tells, the bible is indeed a great piece of work. But some people believe that Playboy is a great piece of work and I don't, so it just proves that "great" is subjective, but I suppose you're probably safer to go with the majority of people's thoughts on the subject, not just one person's.

>Yeah like why the hell the only kangaroo kebabs you can buy are covered>in plastic and have goo all over them. I'm serious. The price of roo is>out of control. Why can't I go to the butcher and get a half or quarter>of a roo,

Try living in Grenfell, dude, where the only way to get kangaroo is to go driving at night and hit one with your car.

On 10/02/2011 Godless wrote:>On 10/02/2011 Wendy wrote:>>well, you could try and up it. Get your willy caught in a chockstone>and>>amuptate with a nut tool.>>That's a bit sexist isn't it? What's a girl to do who wants to choose>that career path?>>The glass ceiling doesn't have a wide roof crack through it.

A girl wouldn't have to go that far. Just get your knickers caught in your belay device during abseil and cut them off with a pocketknife, you'll find your popularity soars.

@Sabu - if you are looking for a historically accurate(ish) religion which can be debated then you should look towards Islam. There is much more evidence that Mohammed not only existed but did what is claimed to have done in the Koran.

I had a quick look at this website: http://johndickson.org/christfiles which shows excerpts of a doco based on the book you mentioned. The two videos I can see provide evidence of what early Christians believed...nothing about the actual existence of Christ.

I did a bit of a search and found no first hand accounts of the existence of Jesus or the deeds he committed. The 'evidence' that I did read, for example Tacitus, were accounts of Christians and their beliefs, not evidence for Jesus' existence.

The NT of the Bible is a bit hard to use as a source as its not actually first hand. None of the four gospels were written till at least 30 years after the events and the authors cannot be established. It is generally agreed that Mark was the first gospel and that Matthews and Lukes gospel were based upon that and another source (refered to as Q). Johns gospel was based on neither and hence has little in common with the other three. This is to say nothing of the bias of the authors.

Im not saying that the Bible is completely bullshit, there are clearly events portrayed within that coincide with historical events, just that the evidence for the figure of Jesus as portrayed within the Bible is virtually non-existent.